The Energon Pub

Burn wrote:Someone's started on the booze early!

yes i'm still a little drunk, but in a few hours i shall be sober, but you will still be ugly[/churchill]

So ... we won't be having sex then?

depends how many more i have to drink, and wether you mind if i pass out during.

Ahh Tammuz, giving drunken sluts everywhere a good name!

I would like to see a date/time stamp in mission/arena History. At the very least, the Mission/arena battle #.

The current labels like "Done - 00:50:01" is absolutely useless.

Galvatron Supreme wrote:I would like to see a date/time stamp in mission/arena History. At the very least, the Mission/arena battle #.

The current labels like "Done - 00:50:01" is absolutely useless.

I disagree. I think having a time and date would render them useless. Your character can only store like 5 mission and 5 arena matches at a time. And really who doesn't check their mission results? To me knowing how long the mission/arena lasted is more useful to when it took place. Because for me it's always "Just a second ago" or "just got back better check my results".

er merc, that isn't a tally of how long the battle took, it's a tally of how long ago it happened, so "Done - 00:50:01" means it happend a little under an hour ago.

as to the battle id no. in FF or IE (dunno about opera), if you roll over the battle log link, the url should show up in your browser's status bar at the bottom left corner. thelog number is the set of digits at the end.

Tammuz wrote:er merc, that isn't a tally of how long the battle took, it's a tally of how long ago it happened, so "Done - 00:50:01" means it happend a little under an hour ago.

as to the battle id no. in FF or IE (dunno about opera), if you roll over the battle log link, the url should show up in your browser's status bar at the bottom left corner. thelog number is the set of digits at the end.

I didn't know that. But now it means that Galvatron Supreme was asking for a redundant feature right? Either way I don't really think it needs to be changed. I'm on Firefox (lol IE users) so I'll give that a try. Thanks Tammuz. You're a respectable upstanding young lady, no matter what everyone else says.

i think he wants something like "Done - 31/10/2008 - 23:59"

course then we'd have to have a whole slew of options for if you wanted the more common DDMMYY format, or the less widely used MMDDYY format, and then there's the thing with time zones and it's gets a little complicated; it's 18:46 01/11/2008 for me it's 04:46 02/11/2008 for Burn, and 09:46 11/01/2008 for Sustain

Tammuz wrote:i think he wants something like "Done - 31/10/2008 - 23:59"

course then we'd have to have a whole slew of options for if you wanted the more common DDMMYY format, or the less widely used MMDDYY format, and then there's the thing with time zones and it's gets a little complicated; it's 18:46 01/11/2008 for me it's 04:46 02/11/2008 for Burn, and 09:46 11/01/2008 for Sustain

You're trying to make my head hurt with that because you know I'm hung over. I know that's what you're trying to do. Mission accomplished.

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Thanks Tammuz. You're a respectable upstanding young lady, no matter what everyone else says.

Oh turn it up!

You don't need to flatter her to get into those panties.

Burn wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Thanks Tammuz. You're a respectable upstanding young lady, no matter what everyone else says.

Oh turn it up!

You don't need to flatter her to get into those panties.

Sounds like you're talking from experience. How'd you get her out of them Burnsy? It was booze wasn't it?

Tammuz wrote:i think he wants something like "Done - 31/10/2008 - 23:59"

course then we'd have to have a whole slew of options for if you wanted the more common DDMMYY format, or the less widely used MMDDYY format, and then there's the thing with time zones and it's gets a little complicated; it's 18:46 01/11/2008 for me it's 04:46 02/11/2008 for Burn, and 09:46 11/01/2008 for Sustain

Yes, That's what I was asking for. However, I didn't know that that the numbers represented how long ago the mission ended nor that rolling over it showed on the bottom bar. Learning those 2 facts just helped me immensely and made means they are more than adequate for my needs Thank you!

Merc With A Mouth wrote:

Burn wrote:

Merc With A Mouth wrote:Thanks Tammuz. You're a respectable upstanding young lady, no matter what everyone else says.

Oh turn it up!

You don't need to flatter her to get into those panties.

Sounds like you're talking from experience. How'd you get her out of them Burnsy? It was booze wasn't it?

Nah, I just "manned up". I was all "*****! You get those ***** *** panties off now *****!"

Hey, it's Tammuz, you can do what you want!

So your advice is to borderline date rape her. Gotcha.

Yes well, you're not the only one who's spent too much time over the years reading Deadpool comics.

Shazbot - that was an interesting page-and-a-half. Quick ones on subject before the shenannigans continue.

-- What if the missions generated against the beasts by the G1 factions had 4 slots instead of 6? Would be easier to generate the competition to fill.
-- What about using a blackjack card counting system to determine what missions should be generated when to maximize competition (originally mentioned here)?

the limiting of the mission size would help. explain this blackjack thing.

Dunno if this has been mentioned but only the beasts teams should be able to make these missions and they should be smaller too, i hate it when it created a pred or maximal mission and there are none in sight and u have no choice to go in and win unapposed.

Tammuz wrote:explain this blackjack thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting - I'll let Wiki explain Blackjack.

Tammuz, you made that point that it would kill the server to run any kind of statistics to weight mission generation. What if ratios were incremented / decremented for each mission win / loss and for mission entries for each faction. So as a faction is (a) not joining missions and (b) not winning their probability decreases for another faction to generate a mission against them.

I'm visiting family otherwise I'd run some formulas to better explain. But does that make sense?

Ive said repeadedly that we need 4v4 missions between the two beast factions and between beast and mechanical factions, and tag team missions wouldnt go amiss, but sadly the control panel is borked (so the mods are powerless) and OS is 'busy'.

what about beast vs. mech combined factions? or "good" vs. "evil" combined? could those be arranged?

It cant be done im afriad.

In my eyes, beasts vs mechs is a better idea then "good" vs "evil" since technically, Autobots and Decepticons are criminals for not making the upgrade.

Customizable weapons would be the pooznit!

And for god sakes, why can my TFs be a hearse as an alternate mode?